[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Shouldn't we go beyond words and connect with emotions by creating political "images" of our position where people relate without requirement of adopting the language of an ideology.

In my opinion, ajj, this would be a move from rationalist thinking into romanticism.I'm afraid I've had enough of all this, now.I had hopes that you and ALB, at least, would be worth engaging with, but nothing I'm saying seems to have any effect with anyone connected to the SPGB.Last point: we either adopt an ideology consciously, or adopt an ideology unconsciously.You're making a serious philosophical mistake to go in search of 'non-ideology'.Thanks for having me.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBirdThank you for the continuation of the one-way lecture. I am afraid I remain an ignorant buffoon wallowing in my ignorance at the feet of the ‘science messiah’, with the rest of the proletariat. As you say, we are like the Shakespearian monkey. Eventually we will all randomly write the works of Karl Marx. Or in my case Fred Engels.

Vin, once again I've treated you with respect, and spent some time trying to give you a 'way in' to some very complex issues, and tried to put our differences aside.But, once again, I've had it thrown in my face.I am forced to conclude that you really are 'an ignorant buffoon'.I should go back to taking the piss, but I've wasting enough time (again and again and again) with the SPGB.Continue to wallow in ignorance, you bloody fools.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Do we require all the baggage that we carry with us? Or can we travel towards our destination much quicker with a much lighter ideological load?

You're falling for the 'objectivist' myth, ajj.There is no such thing as 'a much lighter ideological load'. Science tells us that an 'ideological load' is inescapable for humans.If we pretend to ditch a 'load' that we are conscious of, we don't suddenly lighten our burden. We simply replace our 'load' with someone else's 'ideology', but now we are worse off for being unaware of it.Thus, you're, in effect, suggesting ditching Communist ideology, and loading up with bourgeois ideology.This is why our discussion on this thread, about scientific method and Communism, is so politically important.And you haven't responded to my earlier post, when I described how the notion of 'objectivity' is an elitist 'ideological load', and that it is a feature of Leninism.So, we've three choices:1. Be 'objective', and be a Leninist;2. Ditch conscious socialist ideology, and take on board, unconsciously, bourgeois ideology;3. Openly declare our ideological load, which is the scientific method appropriate for the class conscious proletariat.

ajj wrote:

We can all agree that the thread is a total irrelevance if it is not all about our class and our relationship to it which cannot be in the sphere of lofty exchanges in philosophy but about practical application of that philosophy …and the only way way disputing interpretations will be resolved is putting things to the actual test. Arrrggg…i'll be shot at dawn for being an empiricalist now…testing won't be neutral…

I think you can see that the thread is not a 'total irrelevance', except to those who wish to avoid talking about politics in science, and want to adopt either Leninist or bourgeois ideology.At least your final joke shows that you are aware of the difficulties!

[LBird]

I’ve decided to try to use an analogy, for Vin and any other comrades who are having difficulty with the ideas being discussed on this thread, about the nature of ‘science’.No doubt Vin hates any sort of talk about ‘Thatcherite economics’, and will contrast them unfavourably with ‘Marxist economics’. But the same sort of ideological prefix can be attached to science, too, as much as to economics.If we look at the views of those who oppose me, like DJP, it’s not too difficult to see in their arguments a focus on ‘individuals’ (at the expense of the ‘social’) and a high regard for elite, academic, specialist, ‘scientists’ (at the expense of ‘mass, democratic, participation’), and a respect for a ‘fixed Truth’ (at the expense of ‘critical, historical, social, changeable truth’).For the individualist, elitist, the lover of ‘objective Truth’, ‘there is no alternative’ to the knowledge that they produce. For the social, democratic, the critic of existing truth, there is always an alternative to the knowledge that they produce.So, Vin and the others, if you think of ‘science’ as being of two types: Thatcherite and Socialist, just like economics, which type would you look to for guidance?The Thatcherites infamously told us that ‘There Is No Alternative’ (TINA, as Thatcher was derided), and that is just what the ‘objectivists’ would have us believe about their ‘objective scientific method’ and its production of so-called ‘objective truth’. They say that ‘There is no alternative to what nature tells us’.But we Socialists disagree. ‘Nature’ never tells us anything. We know this from the results of science since Einstein. Nature is always interrogated by humans, and thus it only answers the questions that we pose. Our questions are always social and historical, and thus so are our answers. These answers, whilst ‘scientific’, are not ‘The Truth’. So, we argue that there is always an alternative to a ‘scientific’ answer, and that this recognition forms the basis of critical thought and method for humans.That’s it, in a nutshell, Vin.The choice is between Thatcherite economics and science, or Socialist economics and science.There is no ‘objective’ economics or science. Those who say that these human activities are ‘objective’, are hired prize fighters of the bourgeoisie, whether they are conscious of it, or not. And many aren’t, yet.But you can be, Vin. I hope this helps, comrade.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

So, I never mean 'individual' when I say 'subject'. A 'subject' is, in effect, a 'society/social group' (including a 'class').

That just sounds one-sided and non-dialectical. Do you think medicine should be administered to social groups and not individuals?

What has 'administering medicine' got to do with the production of scientific knowledge, and the epistemological relationship between object, subject and knowledge?As for dialectics, I see this as Engelsian quackery.You seem determined to focus on 'individuals', DJP. Is this a function of your liberal ideology? It's certainly nothing to do with class analysis or Communism.Your continued presence on this thread baffles me, DJP. You don't appear to want to learn, but just to mystify and complicate matters. I can only presume that it's an inherent part of your elitist scientific method, which wishes to hide knowledge from workers, and thus retain an authority over them.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Oh, that's clear enough but i thought that the distinction you were trying to draw was between "socially subjective" and "individually subjective". I see, though, that you think it's a distinction between two "socially subjective" points of view which are equally "right".

You've probably forgotten the substance of the discussion we had (last year?) with twc et al, about Schaff and object, subject and knowledge. During that, I defined the 'subject' as a 'social individual', which is I think in line with Marx's thinking on the issue. So, I never mean 'individual' when I say 'subject'. A 'subject' is, in effect, a 'society/social group' (including a 'class').And yes, since 'right' is socially defined, then two societies can have differing opinions on what is 'right' or 'wrong'. So, I do think that two 'socially subjective' points of view can be equally 'right'.

ALB wrote:

I'm not prepared to be so indulgent towards "the bourgeoise (or anyone under their influence" who claim that socialism is impossible. I can see where they are coming from but, as far as I'm concerned, they are just plain wrong.

Well, since 'right' and 'wrong' are socially-defined, they must be located within a social group's thinking. I agree with you, and think that they are 'plain wrong', but that's because of my 'ideological perspective', which I think i share with you, rather than any 'universal' or 'objective' notion of right/wrong.

ALB wrote:

However you describe this, socialism is possible whether or not they agree or whether or not they like it. It is not just a matter of opinion or of class position. I don't know why you are reluctant to admit this and find a way of saying so not even one which avoids the word "objective".

This, I'm afraid, is where I disagree with you. It is a 'matter of opinion'. The opinion of the class conscious proletariat. Once we talk of 'objective', we are compelled to claim that some group of humans have unmediated access to the Truth. This has been disproved for physics, never mind sociology!In history, whenever an elite group of humans have claimed to have an access to The Truth/objectivity, an access denied to the majority, they've used it to dominate the majority. 'Knowledge is Power', eh?For Communists, this is a vitally important position to take: we must insist that we don't have any special access to 'The Truth', and must argue that 'true' is socially-defined, and that, being democrats, we insist the 'truth' can only reside in the perspective of the class conscious proletariat (which, after a successful revolution, will be the majority of humanity).This is all a question of authority, legitimacy and power.'Objectivity' smells of 'elitism' throughout history.I hope that I've clarified my ideological position on 'objectivity', for you.Whether you agree, is another issue. Clearly, if you don't, I'll go on to ask you to outline your ideological belief about 'objectivity'.

[LBird]

Hmmm… 'real', now, eh?Is there no end to your diversions?God forbid you'd answer the question about 'objective facts'. At least ALB is entering into the enquiring spirit of things.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Simply put, 'socially subjective' means one's class position.

Go, figure?

More useless comment. No question, no explanation, no help.You're an obstacle to workers' advancement.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

for the proletariat (or anyone under their influence) it's a 'fact' that socialism is possible.

That's clearly false, at this moment in time at least…

I didn't specify 'when', did I, smart arse.It was a simple answer to a simple question.Why don't you go and hang out with your academic friends, and discuss truth and logic to your heart's content, and leave this thread to those who want to learn, to ask more questions, to deepen their knowledge, and participate as comrades.Your method is to confuse, to maintain your status. It's elitism, pure and simple. No attempt to discuss the thorny issue of 'objectivity', in a helpful way, but yet another diversion, into 'truth and falsity'. You wish to complicate, the better to prevent the spread of knowledge amongst workers.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

OK, it's a "socially subjective fact"  that socialism is the only framework within which the problems currently facing humanity in general and the working class in particular can be solved.  But this goes for everybody even for those who deny this.  There must be some way of distinguishing between those who accept this and those who deny it. What words would you use to do this? Both can't be "subjectively right". Or can they?.

Simply put, 'socially subjective' means one's class position.So, for the bourgeoisie (or anyone under their influence) it's a 'fact' that socialism is impossible.And, for the proletariat (or anyone under their influence) it's a 'fact' that socialism is possible.Thus, both 'possible' and 'impossible' are 'socially subjectively right'.There is no 'objective' answer.This method also applies to physics. The fruits of relativity, I'm afraid.

[LBird]

Vin, I've tried several times to put a stop to our bickering, and try to engage with you about the philosophy of science. I'm keen to help any comrades get to grips with this supposedly difficult subject.In fact, because I'm a Communist, I think we should try to simplify many of the explanations given by academics in books, because I think that they are deliberately written to keep the knowledge away from ordinary workers. In line with this effort, I've asked you some questions, to try to get you started on some of the issues involved.But…you always immediately jump to the end, and ask why something 'obvious' to you can't be simply taken as 'The Truth', and then begin to rubbish my explanations.So, I give it back. Now, I just ignore the content of your posts, and take the piss.I don't want to do this, I really want to discuss the philosophy of science, and develop my own understanding further. But the antics of you, DJP, YMS, Brian, and now ALB, have made this impossible.I think I can say that the only posters who've made any real attempt to engage are SocialistPunk and alanjjohnstone, and the latter even admits that they are out of their depth, rather than bluster on, like the rest of you.Now, if you can stop yourself from having another dig, let's put the insults behind us.Can you answer the question about 'objective truth'? Do you think that there are 'facts' outside of any social framework?

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

 Yes, yes, yes, Vin, that mud on your hands really is there. So, that's sorted out the philosophy of science, eh? If Vin's got mud on his hands, or Vin can touch a rock, what's the need for all this nonsense about 'science'. 

 I don't remember saying that. Nay I never said it. "A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. [1] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue." Wiki

Mud and straw man, Vin. You have some substance, you're not just an intellectual scarecrow.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

That just makes me a naive socialist not a naive realist !Anyway, you said you agreed that socialism was the only framework within which the problems currently facing humanity in general and the working class in particular can be solved. I was just making the point that this was the case irrespective of whether or not people agreed with it, i.e that it was not a matter of opinion but was actually so. I agree with it. You agree with it.  Millions don't. Can we not say that we are right and they are wrong without being labelled (or labelling ourselves) as elitist?

But, ALB, I've just proved that you did say "objective", when you seemed to be baffled when I claimed that you'd said it.But, no acknowledgement that I'm right, just another diversion away from the thread title.The reason this thread continues to go round in circles is precisely because the tactics you're now employing are the same as those that the rest of them have employed throughout!Do you believe in 'objective facts' or not? It's a simple question.I'll happily answer it.No, there is no such thing as 'objective facts'. 'Facts' are always 'theory-laden',  and are part of a framework of selection. In that sense, 'facts' are always 'subjective'.There! I can give a clear answer.I already know that the mob will return to "ahhh, but 'subjective' is 'idealism', 'post-modernism', 'individual opinion' " and avoid answering my question about 'objectivity'. Even though they've already been told that by 'subjective', I mean 'socially subjective', that the 'subject' is always a social creation, imbued with social ideas and ideology. This is the same old diversionary tactic, to avoid answering a question. Can't answer 'objective'? Move to 'subjective'. Can't answer 'subjective'? Move to 'knowledge'. Can't answer 'knowledge'? Move to 'truth'. Can't answer 'truth'? Move to 'logic', 'maths', 'mind', 'rocks', 'mud' … now 'naive socialism', just so no-one has to talk about 'Science and Communism'.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

Go and speak to some scientists, you'll find none of them believe in naive realism or think they are uncovering the absolute unmediated "Truth".

Well, YMS and ALB do. They've both said so, finally..

I don't recall saying that. When and where was it?

ALB, post #310, wrote:

This is not a mere matter of opinion ("ideology") but is the case irrespective of whether people agree with it or not or what they might think. It is an objective fact.

[my bold]If your going to deny it, ALB, or start to play with words, saying something like,"ahhh… but 'objective fact' isn't 'absolute unmediated "Truth" "then I'm done with you, too.No wonder ajj can't follow these discussions. He's right to be unimpressed by them.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

'Objective Truth' leads to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.

Is that really true?If so what makes it true?

The deaths of hundreds of millions of workers and Communists?We've listened to the 'Objective Truthists' for far too long. But, we're learning, slowly…If only we'd listened to Marx, rather than Engels.

So..1. 'Objective Truth' leads to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.2. Hundreds of millions of workers and Communists died under Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.3. Therefore 'Objective Truth' leads to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.I don't think you've yet got a valid argument there yet.

'Valid' for who?Valid for workers, or valid for the elitist academics who 'know' logic?Don't worry, I know your answer. 'Logic is not a democratic vote'.

[Author]

Posts